2026 Atlanta Tort Law Reform

Litigation financing—sometimes called party litigation funding or third-party litigation funding—refers to financial support provided by a non-party while a lawsuit is pending. In Atlanta cases, this most often arises when someone is dealing with ongoing medical or healthcare expenses or a long recovery period that makes it difficult to wait for a case to resolve.

Under the current law, litigation financing agreements receive closer attention from Atlanta courts than they did in the past.

Courts may now require disclosure of certain litigation financing agreements, including the identity of litigation financiers, repayment terms, and whether the agreement gives a third party any influence over litigation decisions. This applies to third-party litigation funding as well as other litigation financing arrangements.

Judges may review these agreements to determine whether they affect control of the case, create conflicts related to attorney’s fees, or improperly influence settlement decisions.

The law also clarifies limits on attorneys’ fees where outside funding is involved. These provisions are aimed at preventing arrangements that resemble fee-sharing or result in a funder receiving the same attorney’s fees as counsel.

In practice, Atlanta attorneys must carefully structure fee and funding agreements. Courts may address these issues early—sometimes before discovery begins—as part of case management under revised court rules.

When someone seeks compensation for medical and healthcare expenses following a car accident or other event that caused injury due to someone else’s negligence, courts may consider evidence tied to health insurance or private health insurance payments. Rather than focusing only on the total amount billed, courts may evaluate the reasonable value of medical services.

This approach is intended to prevent double recovery while still allowing recovery of legitimate medical expenses and damages for injuries sustained.

The court determines what medical evidence is presented to the jury. In some cases, arguments about billed versus paid amounts may be limited by how the judge applies the court rules and the rules governing objections raised by the opposing party.

This often affects how damages are explained at trial, particularly in cases involving extensive treatment or long-term care.

In certain Atlanta cases, judges may require liability and damages to be addressed in separate phases before the same judge and jury. Liability is decided first. Damages follow. This structure affects trial pacing, closing arguments, and overall litigation strategy, especially in cases where noneconomic damages play a central role—for instance, cases involving traumatic brain injury or wrongful death.

Claims for noneconomic damages—such as pain, suffering, or emotional distress—remain part of Georgia law. Courts now have clearer authority to manage how parties argue non-economic damages, particularly where there is a risk of unfair prejudice.

Under Georgia Code O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1, punitive damages continue to require proof of such wrongful conduct that goes beyond ordinary negligence. In limited situations, proof of imminent wrongful conduct may also be relevant.

Atlanta sees a significant number of negligent security cases involving apartment complexes, hotels, parking areas, and commercial properties. To move forward, plaintiffs must still show that a property owner failed to exercise ordinary care—taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.

The current law clarifies how courts evaluate:

• Prior criminal activity on or near the property
• The role of security contractors
• Foreseeability in negligent security cases

In cases involving sexual offenses, including assault, the law specifies how notice and prior incidents may be evaluated. These standards also apply to broader sexual offense claims involving third-party criminal acts.

Atlanta courts continue to assess whether a property owner’s wrongful conduct contributed to the harm, particularly where that conduct involves ignoring known risks.

If a lawsuit doesn’t clearly explain what happened and why the defendant is being sued, the defense may ask the court to stop the case early. In response, a judge can require the plaintiff to clarify or add more detail before the case moves forward.

While the court reviews that request, the case usually pauses. If the judge disagrees, the case continues. If the judge agrees, the plaintiff must revise the complaint before proceeding.

In some cases, the defendant may respond to a lawsuit by filing a formal response and asking the court to address certain issues. This can affect how quickly the case moves forward, especially if the court needs to rule on those requests before the case continues.

The updated law also explains how cases that were already filed are handled under the new rules. Courts may consider when the incident occurred and whether a case can still be dismissed voluntarily, depending on how far along it is.

In limited situations, an injury claim may involve conduct covered by the Consumer Protection Act, such as deceptive practices or repeated unsafe conditions. The reform helps clarify how those statutory claims can be raised alongside personal injury allegations without duplicating recovery.

The law also clarifies how premises liability claims are evaluated, particularly when multiple parties are involved. Courts may address these issues through early motion practice, which can narrow the scope of a case before discovery begins.